Go to hell, you stupid dingbat
|Which is why you don't waste time arguing with them- you simply destroy them and move on|
Jeremy Clarkson has been all over the news for 19 straight days.
That’s over a fortnight of reporting on SteakGate, as well as Clarkson’s worst moments, his best moments, his most controversial moments - it’s still unclear if there is any difference between these - and endless debate on whether the BBC should have sacked him or not.
Frankly, I no longer give a damn.
Clarkson is finally off our TV screens. After 13 years of racist comments, general rudeness and physical violence (Piers Morgan also fell prey to his wayward fist), the BBC has grown some balls and sacked the man. Yes, this is great news for anyone with common standards of decency, and yes, it's also sad for his diehard fans.
I get it, honestly. But can we please just get over Clarkson and focus on what we all really care about here: Top Gear.
The TV show is so well loved that it brings the BBC £50 million of revenue each year, is shown in dozens of countries and has reached semi-cult status.
Cue tired arguments from Clarksonites that everything’s over for the corporation now it has lost the star of the show. Top Gear’s nothing without Clarkson; doom doom doom.
But Top Gear was popular before Clarkson and it will continue post-Clarkson. The only thing that matters now is who replaces him.
There have been whispers around Steve Coogan, sports journalist Dan Walker, or comedian Johnny Vaughan. Each contender is equipped with enough testosterone to get the show firmly back on its macho, borderline-sexist feet.
Unless, of course, the BBC is brave enough to take a step away from the petrol heads and go for someone who could lower those raging hormone levels, while bringing in hordes of new viewers: a woman.
A female presenter is just what the show needs. [Didact: And a psychologist specialising in treating people with severe cognitive disabilities is just what you need, Ms. Sanghani.]
And they'll do it using the stupidest possible arguments as well.
Ms. Sanghani starts off in a very bad way, by confusing cause with effect. She states, quite accurately, that Top Gear has a gigantic fan base that brings in huge amounts of revenues each year. This is completely true.
But then she makes a huge mistake by blithely assuming that the revenues generated by this cultural touchstone will simply continue, as is, without the people who made it what it is today.
She apparently doesn't seem to understand that the show's hosts, Clarkson, May, and Hammond, all have tremendous chemistry with each other that shines through in each and every episode. She doesn't comprehend that the show's producer, Andy Wilman, is a creative genius, and that the show's various directors are exceptionally good at managing the mercurial talents of their three stars- actually four, since you absolutely cannot leave out The Stig.
She doesn't quite get the fact that the show works because it delivers something that you simply can't see on television anymore, and especially not from the politically correct lefty loonies in charge of the Bulls**t Broadcasting Corporation these days. The show delivers politically incorrect commentary with an air of complete disdain for the opinions and feeeeeeeelings of others, yet does it in a humourous and light-hearted way, so that only the most ideologically blinded and foolish among us could possibly be offended by the blokeish, clumsy, yet oddly endearing stupidity of the hosts.
Then Ms. Sanghani really goes off the deep end by claiming that Top Gear was popular in the years BC- Before Clarkson.
She actually does have some justification for stating this. Top Gear was indeed once a popular show... if you consider six million viewers that the old show had at its peak to be popular, relative to the THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION that the current format of the show routinely enjoys.
Having thus established that Ms. Sanghani is incapable of understanding logic and may also have failed maths at the primary school level, we now turn to the question of whether or not a female host for Top Gear will return the show to its former level of popularity.
For this, we can simply turn to other female-fronted shows that focus on male-dominated pursuits, such as sports or cars. And there are two good examples that we can use to check whether Ms. Sanghani's assertions make any sense at all.
First, we have a US sports show called "We Need To Talk" on CBS, which has the, er, "distinction" of being fronted by an all-female group of hosts who talk less about what actually happens in the various sports that they cover and more about their feeeeeeelings about those sports. (As if one could expect anything different with a title that scrotum-shrivellingly awful).
|The 11 horse-faced women of the Sportspocalypse|
Second, we can look at motoring shows that actually do have female hosts- such as Fifth Gear, which has a female presenter named Vicki Butler-Henderson, and D Motor, which is basically Germany's equivalent of Top Gear and boasts THE best driver that the Nurburgring has ever seen, Sabine Schmitz, as one of its hosts.
Again, I have no ratings numbers against which to judge the relative successes or failures of these shows. So we have to go by user reviews of both when compared to Top Gear. And the results are... interesting.
Top Gear gets an average viewer review of, depending on which site you use, about 89-90%.
Fifth Gear gets an average user review of about 73%.
D Motor is watched pretty much only in Germany, which means that its viewer base is small and its ratings in English are unknown and probably unknowable. But it's fair to say that by the only measures that count- ratings and fans- it can't come anywhere close to competing with Top Gear.
In fact, the only shows that can compete with the Top Gear juggernaut are procedural crime drama shows like CSI. That gives you some idea of just how hugely popular the show really is.
So there you have it. The best arguments that the SJWs have for introducing yet more estrogen into yet another male space are systematically destroyed through simple but brutal applications of logic, reason, numbers, and sheer cussed common sense.
|I'm just waiting for Ryan Reynolds to ruin this the way he ruined Green Lantern|
For that, we have only to turn to Vox Day's First Law of Social Commentary- namely, MOST PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS (MPAI).
This isn't that difficult to figure out, and Vox himself has illustrated it with a very simple and straightforward series of arguments.
First, understand that it is a statistical reality that 50% of any given statistically significant population will, by definition, be at or below the average IQ of 100. This of course assumes that IQs follow a Gaussian distribution, which in "sufficiently large" populations (say, n > 1,000) is observably true.
Second, understand that most people with IQs at or below 120 are not actually "really smart". They're just smarter than roughly 95% of all other people. That doesn't make them the smartest people in any given room, it just makes them smart enough to fall prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect, whereby they greatly overestimate their own competence and skill relative to the rest of the population.
Ms. Sanghani is assuredly more intelligent than the average person. Yet she has very clearly fallen prey to the whispered stupidities of people telling her what a special and wonderful snowflake she is, simply by virtue of being a female of above-average intelligence- which still makes her considerably less well-versed in basic logic, numeracy, and the rhetorical and dialectical modes of argument than a man of above-average intelligence.
Now I'm sure that, in person, she's probably a very nice young lady- though you'd be hard-pressed not to stare at that whacking great wine-sniffer of hers. But she needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, that she is a mid-witted moron, so that the rest of us are never again troubled by her absurdly misinformed and deeply ridiculous bleatings about "inequality".
And if her FEELZ are hurt in the process, well, too damn bad. I have already shown, both here and in previous posts, that Ms. Sanghani is not only not particularly intelligent or well-informed, but deeply intellectually dishonest as well. Why, then, should the rest of us be required to pay her the most miniscule micron of attention?
|And her nose is nicer to look at, too|